- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:34:50 +0200
- To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, WHAT working group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, 'HTML WG Public List' <public-html@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:26:35AM +0300, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> I'm still wondering if HTML5 should define an element for less than
> normal importance or emphasis.
Possibly. It may be a little bit too fine-grained, but it is worth
considering.
> So <small> means less important than normal (default) importance of
> plain text, if I've understood correctly when used outside <em> or
No. This is a misunderstanding. The SMALL-element signify smaller
text, visually. It has /no/ other meaning, and since the past usage
is inconsistent, to say the least, we cannot give it any meaning.
We /must/ stop thinking that the B-, I-, SMALL- or BIG-elements can
be given /any/ meaning. It's not a productive way forward; only another
step back.
> In the end, perhaps <small> should be used for de-emphasis of any
> content other than plain text. Parenthesis can then be used for
> de-emphasis of normal content.
If we did that, then a huge amount of existing documents would suddenly
have meaning where no meaning was meant to exist.
It'll break stuff in a bad way. A new element for de-emphasis, yes,
but no overload for SMALL. It's illogical and will create a mess.
--
- Tina Holmboe Developer's Archive Greytower Technologies
http://www.dev-archive.net http://www.greytower.net
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 08:35:24 UTC